192 thoughts on “KF vs Toronto & Petrushka”

Comment navigation

My tablet doesn’t have enough real estate to see who’s posting to whom. I just follow the links from the new posts column. I finally found if I hit the html button it opens a window I can use. Anyway, my apologies to Elizabeth if this isn’t the way she wanted her site to go.

scordova:”So an offer KairosFocus, if you like, on threads that I’m the author of at TheSkepticalZone, I could ban you. Would you like me to do that? I’m happy to oblige. Same for Barry, I can ban him from my threads at TSZ. If I did that, then they wouldn’t have a lot of basis for complaining anymore. “

If Sal really wanted to play fair, he would ban Barry and kairosfocus from his posts at Uncommon Descent.

Sal could also go back and “update” his old OP’s by deleting all of Barry and kairosfocus’s comments for 6 months back.

If you don’t think it’s possible ask Barry for some help as he’s just done a bunch.

It must be moral, because he did it, and it must be legal, again because he did it, but is it ethical, who cares, certainly not Barry.

Kairosfocus at UD on the third thread (!) relating to a total of perhaps 100 words written here:

Now, of course, as was pointed out before this was ever said, we have a case where Petrushka played a nasty game of falsely pretending that I threatened to ban someone who has not been banned then played an even more nasty trick of suggesting — using my abbreviated handle — that I would post pornographic links.

Kairosfocus, FOR RECORD! – please note that

1) in wondering whether mphillips was banned, Petrushka was responding to your statement that you would take ‘stronger measures’ in correction. Ascribing the subsequent silence of mphillips to banning is an entirely reasonable surmise – many of us have first-hand experience of precisely that. Turns out the surmise was off-beam. Hey-ho – no harm done, eh?

2) the poster playing your ‘nasty trick’ was NOT Petrushka. Nor Toronto. (Nor me, for that matter). And it was just a silly, throwaway remark – “you’re welcome here as long as you don’t post porn or overload the servers”. A dig in the ribs.

Regulars here know that this was not a suggestion that YOU really would post porn, but was an in-joke reference to an incident where one of your allies posted a gynaecologist’s-eye-view of a lady’s genitalia to several locations.

I realise this will not mollify you one iota. You are utterly determined to take offence. But I think it would be better to get the facts straight, nonetheless.

Kairosfocus has been kind enough to respond to my earlier post. My voice in 1st and 3rd indents; KF in 2nd and square brackets:

(eta: sorry about the formatting – indenting in the editor has been lost on Post).

Extending the observed human capacity to program and send information to the very DNA that has given rise to those same humans is disfavoured precisely because it is ad hoc.

==>; [–> To observe that the only empirically warranted source of digitally coded, functionally specific, algorithmic info is design is ad hoc? This is an attempt to sweep away an OBSERVATION with massive base by assertion. FYI, ad hoc means: ad hoc [æd ˈhɒk]adj & adv for a particular purpose only; lacking generality or justification (Collins). An empirical observation that is accurately summarised is simply not ad hoc.]

====>;Ad hoc applied to scientific theories means bringing a mechanism into an explanation that has no business being there other than to save the explanation. The capitalised OBSERVATION of human designers in action writing digital code does not equate to the OBSERVATION of any equivalent designer in action generating nucleic acid strings. The designer of such strings cannot itself have an intelligence ‘coded’ by such strings. Therefore you just bring in a designer that is ‘just like’ human designers, except in just about every material respect. That seems pretty ad hoc to me.

The things we can do are no guide to what could be achieved before our tiniest ancestors even started to make the protein that would ultimately take part in the formation of, among other things, our brains.

==>[–> Again, kindly tell us the observed source of complex algorithmically functional digital code? Do we have , anywhere, empirical warrant for the origin of such by chance and necessity? Where observed, by whom, where published and in what year did they get the Nobel Prize for such an achievement?]

====>Argumentum ad sarcasum? The observed source of complex algorithmically functional digital code is human beings. The oft-used phrase “chance and necessity”, though I am aware of its provenance (the French of J Monod) is pretty meaningless. Let’s allow it as a shorthand for chemistry acting entirely unaided. No observer has observed a chemical replicator coming into being in such a manner, indeed. But then, neither has a human being managed to achieve it by deliberate means. So the jury must remain out on that one. Should a human manage the trick, we will have a model system to study. We will remain in something of a bind regarding the availability of non-human designers, and whatever additional capacities they may have brought to bear on the process.

No amount of logical contortion disengages ID from the charge of inserting an ad hoc cause.

==>[–> Doubling down on the fallacy]

====>Saying absolutely nothing.

‘Materialist’ scientists (that is, the vast majority of ‘em) consider that throughout its history, replication must obey physical laws.

==>[–> Red herring…]

====>But true.

The energy gradients involved in it must be a net flow ‘downhill’.

==>[–> Strawman, in this case a propagandistic one that falsely suggests that design thinkers think like that …],

====>Simply an observation of a real thermodynamic limitation. Design thinkers that don’t need that reminder – good for them. Design thinkers that do … it still wasn’t addressed to them. It points out an essential feature of the output of the early process. Not a molecular machine that needs constant tinkering, but a self-perpetuating one.

Intelligence per se cannot change that – the intelligent designer must design a system tapping a net ‘downhill’ energy flow, else that system will not be self-sustaining.

==>[–> More strawman caricatures. Correcting what no-one has said can sound very impressive, but it is misleading. Onlookers may want to check out here on to see my own remarks on this general subject.]

====>You are parrying blows not dealt. It is simply an observation that leads towards the conclusion. If all ID sympathisers are entirely au fait with the Second Law of Thermodynamics, then it is simply a statement of something everybody knows. By my experience, it does not appear that everybody does know that, but it hardly makes it a straw man either way.

Is it reasonable to infer that there was ever a point at which energy flowed ‘uphill’, against the overall thermodynamic gradient?

==>[–> Of course, the real point is that those who construct ART-ificial systems, do so by creating a counter-flow, using intelligence, purposes and plans based on knowledge and skill to guide work. More strawman distortions.]

====>No, the real point is that intelligence can’t get you round the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, on observation.

I’d say no, pace Granville Sewell.

==>[–> Misrepresentaiton by name. He has argued that what we do not see is FSCO/I arising by spontaneous processes through blind chance and mechanical necessity. Which is true.]

====>If what he argues involves violation of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics by ‘intelligence’, then we don’t see that either. And FSCO/I is not an established concept.

What the ID seems to be ‘for’ is the task of gathering the components of an early replicator from an entropically ‘diffuse’ state into a ‘localised’ one. Even the ID may be expected to be thermodynamically bound, on ‘best inference’ – there are no known ‘intelligent violators’ of the actual 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.

==>[–> More strawmen, this is a forest of them by now. Intelligence is routinely seen to gather raw materials from scattered states, and to process them into materials and components for systems, then to build the systems. What is not observed, is the same happening by blind chance and mechanical necessity, and the issues highlighted by the 500 – 1,000 bit threshold for FSCI shows us why.]

====>And, despite your physics background, you seem unwilling to grasp this point, so perhaps I was not earlier ‘caricaturing’ your viewpoint at all. Intelligence can intentionally gather materials, but cannot – on observation – do so without expending energy. So you have invoked some kind of “2nd Law of Thermodynamics” which is not THE 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. This is basic physics, and if you persist in inventing capacities for intelligence which are not OBSERVED, then you have no business waving Newton’s Rules at anyone. Conduct a VERY carefully controlled experiment, and see if you can get a circumstance where Intelligence gathers raw materials from scattered states, and processes them into materials and components for systems, then builds the systems without requiring a change in entropy elsewhere in order to do so. A simple experiment: don’t feed a programmer for 6 months and then see how much code he can produce. Intelligence by itself cannot move matter – on best observation.

I’m fairly certain KF will not post here because he maps this site and its elements to that other site ATBC. Its not the humor and objection to ID the goes on at ATBC that is the issue, it is how overly personal it appears to be with respect to KF. Stuff I personally would consider out of bounds. That said, it appears to cluster around a single avatar. I’m fairly
certain that none of those engaged with UB at TSZ in the last few months step out of bounds in such a manner. Nonetheless, from KF’s perspective, the association is enough from him to refrain from accepting the invitation to post here.

It’s funny because Petruska (and Dr. Rec) were my favorite dissenters at UD. Always extracted the meat of the argument and econmoically stated their counter. I was banned because I disagreed with Barry about banning Dr.REC. Dr.Rec could be a prick at times no doubt, but the
well stated economical counter-points with an insult sprinkled in here and there were refreshing in the midst of oceans of vanity posts that everyone is guilty of (like this one).

Well, it’s just playacting to Sal and KF anyways. They want to set up a fake equivalence where KF is justified in staying inside UD – because he’s banned at TSK – rather than merely afraid to post here for fear of contact with the mud swamp (or whatever he’s calling TSK nowadays.) Since we all know that Libby won’t ban any of them (except like Joe, for porno spam) they have to get Sal to do the banning here by proxy. Or at least, that’s how I read it.
Could be wrong. I do see there’s some antagonism between Sal and KF because Sal is not entirely KF’s bootlicker and KF doesn’t like that flicker of independence. So maybe Sal would in fact ban KF if he were in a situation with power to do it, but I doubt it.

Here’s where Sal started the game, Aug 26 2:42PM (comment 11 in that linked thread):

“Perhaps the way to make the exchange between Petrushka and Toronto and KairosFocus fair, they could ban KairosFocus from TheSkepticalZone.That would seem the most fair arrangement to me. Of course, if TSZ did that, Toronto and Petrushka and the others would have less reason keep fielding complaints. But I expect that won’t happen because they want to feel justified in complaining.So an offer KairosFocus, if you like, on threads that I’m the author of at TheSkepticalZone, I could ban you. Would you like me to do that? I’m happy to oblige. Same for Barry, I can ban him from my threads at TSZ. If I did that, then they wouldn’t have a lot of basis for complaining anymore. ”

I thought Maus was one of them. He seems to be experiencing the consequences of principled disagreement with Barry Arrington. Perhaps he’d like to continue here at the alligator pit. Can new people register and post here?

Sal does not have moderation capabilities, only posting privileges. He can’t ban anyone and is dishonest (shock!) in claiming he can.

I am seeing a “Delete & Ban IP” button on every post in this thread. I only see that for threads that I have authored. Sal probably sees the same thing.

I have not tested whether it works, because that goes against the general spirit of TSZ. My guess is that it would ban the user from the entire site, not just from posting to threads that I have authored. And then Elizabeth would have to show up to fix it.

I see there is some additional Bullybluster on the objective morality thread:

UPDATE: This post has been up three days now. Only one materialist has had the courage to answer the questions. There have been several attempts to obfuscate, confuse and change the subject, all of which, as promised, have been ruthlessly deleted. Come on materialists. You’re letting your side down. Have the courage to come in here and defend your views.

Such taunting coming from behind a wall of draconian moderation, for some reason, reminds me of these lines:

I don’t wanna talk to you no more, you empty headed animal food trough wiper! I fart in your general direction! Your mother was a hamster and your father smelt of elderberries!

jdnafl – I’m sure KF won’t post here. And I really don’t blame him. Everyone is free to post where they like (rather: can!), and site-runners can ban whoever they like.

Just to note (since your note was a reply to mine), that particular mini-meta-exchange resulted from my offering, unasked, a few ramblings here on the appropriateness of Newton’s Rules to the respective inferences. KF responded at UD, so I responded here … yeah, it’s daft.

Economical. Damn. That’s about the nicest compliment I’ve ever received. Seriously. Because it’s what I attempt.

I don’t single out KF capriciously. Regardless of whether he’s a moderator or not, he baits and goads people into becoming intemperate. He accuses people of moral terpitude for having opinions he doesn’t like. He has a one note criticism of probabilities which he will not discuss in a normal conversational style. He embodies the posting style he accuses his opponents of having.

F/N: […] I am led to wonder if there are any signs that the corrections above and in the two previous posts are being attended to, or are the TSZ denizens dancing on wrong but strong? KF

Corrections … ? I wonder if KF appreciates that the words here are written by a set of individuals advancing their individual views, and none need speak for any other, in attack or defence. There is common ground, but no-one is responsible for what anyone else says. His, however, are all written by one person.

I have attempted to answer the parts of his post that addressed my own (messed up by formatting issues, since UD has one over on TSZ – a very useful preview pane!). Naturally enough, I beg to differ on the subject matter, so I am not about to submit to some injunction to ‘self-correction’, as was advanced to mphillips pending ‘stronger measures’ (not unreasonably inferred by petrushka to mean ejection from the debate). No matter.

Will we see an apology for incorrectly accusing petrushka of the ‘no porn and don’t break the servers’ post? Or does it not really matter – it was one of them darned atheists; they are all the same?

I object to the false equivalence. Uncommon Descent is a heavily and capriciously moderated forum where dissent is barely and only briefly tolerated. The Skeptical Zone actively encourages open discussion and actually has a more civil atmosphere as a result. Suggesting that they are as similar as two colleges shows complete disregard for the principles of intellectual honesty and integrity that Lizzie’s site rules support, both in theory and practice.

I’m fairly certain KF will not post here because he maps this site and its elements to that other site ATBC.

kairosfocus will not post here because he does not wish to subject his views to challenges that he cannot delete and opponents he cannot ban. He can rant about “fevered swamps” all he likes, but the bottom line is that he dares not subject his positions to potential disconfirmation.

What am I supposed to correct? KF alone knows whether his opinions are associated with bannings. They certainly are associated in time. I was personally placed on moderation within a few minutes of disagreeing with KF on a matter of science history. UD remains one of the few sites where posts are deleted entirely on the basis that the opinions expressed are unacceptable. For that reason it has been and remains a laughingstock.

It makes no difference whether mphillips was banned. His posts were deleted because they disagreed with management’s. Shortly after that, correction was threatened. You would have to be brain dead not to see that mphillips could not pursue his argument and survive. So it goes on UD. Management periodically sets up loyalty traps in which even the regular ID supporters are placed in the position of suppressing their honest questions or being purged. After a while all that remain are sycophants and people not alert enough to understand what is going on.

kairosfocus: “When it comes to Joe, you will see that we have corrected him across time towards civility and anger management, and you can see my response to him just above. I am willing to tolerate those who slip up an have to be restrained, but I am not willing to go along with willful persistent abuse. “

There is no hope of a real discussion with your side if you treat us as being less civil than someone like Joe.

Incidentally – in what I’m sure will look like undiluted hypocrisy – I have no interest in getting Joe banned from anywhere. “little children run around as tattle-tales” is fair comment – though I would point out who alerted KF to posts at TSZ in the first place!

But when people start booming sonorously across the Net, on matters with a factual record, it does seem reasonable to try and get the facts straight. KF took clear and ongoing offence at the ‘porn’ joke, and while he may continue to do so, it was intended and read by most in a different spirit, with a particular context.

But glass houses and all that … I don’t claim my internet record is spotless. Further details will NOT be forthcoming!

I have nothing to add to this merriment. My friendly advice to Barry, KF, et al, is to try to look at UD through the eyes of a child. Is this really the face of ID you want young onlookers to see? Fearful and intolerant? You are, after all, in the education business.

A comment on Kairosfocus’s abduction to arrive at a best explanation for the OOL.

A is known to be a source of B

No other source of B is known.

Therefore, I infer that A is the best available explanation of any B.

That kind of abduction seems to work well when A and B are specific well described things. Humans and written language, for example. If archaeologists discovered an ancient tablet with symbols that appeared to be writing, they could reasonably infer that humans were responsible. It’s not a proof. Aliens could conceivably have visited the planet and done some scribblings, for example, but humans are currently by far the best explanation.

The above type of abduction is what Kairosfocus seems to believe he’s doing.

But this is what Kairosfocus really does.

A is known to be a source of B

No other source of B is known

Therefore, I infer that an unknown C which shares a property with A is the best explanation of any D which is similar or analogous to B, and could be given the same broad description.

And he ends up with non-living intelligent designers, something not known to exist, as a best explanation for the origin of life.

Which does not prove he is wrong, except for it being the best explanation. What I got dumped into moderation for was asking for an example in the history of science where a non regular cause was found to be the best explanation. A precedent.

Well let’s not require consistency of ID proponentsists. Fine tuning is the castle keep when all other defences fail. It is Michael Denton’s current position. Something I tried to point out when I was allowed to post. I have nothing against it as a mystical feel good philosophy.

It’s certainly more parsimonious than gpuccio’s recurring gardener, or the notion that DNA computes solutions to satisfy need.

kairosfocus:”So, objectors to design theory, the ball is in your court. (NB: Inputs are also welcome from design theory supporters.) “

The ball “might” be in our court if UD had not banned us even though every single one of us has shown more civility than Joe.

It “might” also be in our court if you had the courage to post here.

But no ID ball is in our court until ID offers up a workable mechanism like evolutionists have.

For instance, do you have anything like a “design simulator” that would be able to target the specific functionality of an irreducibly complex biological entity that would function in a future environment that does not exist today.

Weasel, as simple as it is, shows one aspect of evolution, i.e. selection, at work.

Show the existence of any ID critics other than famous bloggers and authors that have survived more than six months at UD. Go back to the post that got Petrushka banned and tell me what incivility I exhibited.

As far as I can tell, anyone who disagrees with the management and sticks to a principled argument will be banned. But not before being called immoral communist nazi dupes and agents, or the equivalent.

There’s an entire thread listing just some of the posters who have been banned. None of them were as uncivil as KF and Joe are routinely.

To be completely fair, I think it is reasonable to ban people who make offensive comments at other sites. But after being banned for opinions rather than for incivility, there’s no point in pretending to respect the people who banned you.

Respect is due to people who respond to your arguments and who do not delay or hedge or make promises before disappearing for weeks at a time.

One thing about me that is slightly different from many ID critics is I am not afraid of being wrong. I have consistently said that if sequence space is as sparse as KF claims it to be, that is a big problem for evolution. In that sense, KF’s argument is scientific.

Now it is up to KF to answer Thornton and Lenski and others who have explored actual evolutionary scenarios and who have found that three step functional inventions are possible, even in the short time available in controlled experiments.

It would save them much grief if they just closed comments. Since they have no respect for anyone who takes a different view – such people are frequently cast as possessed of some mental deficiency – they could save themselves the trouble of having to correct their opinions by not allowing them to be aired in the first place.

WJM is still pursuing the ‘irrationality’ of the subjective moralist. It strikes me that a rock-paper-scissors matrix could be constructed. Four players, 2xSM and 2xOM. None of them agrees with any other. SM vs SM – it’s a draw. Neither has a ‘rational’ basis for their morality (per WJM). SM vs OM – OM wins, because their morality comes from outside, and is therefore rational (per WJM). But OM vs OM … surely, again, it is a dead heat? Both have the ‘rational’ grounds of believing in Objective Morality. But their respective OM tells them two different things. So it appears that everyone is either a Subjective-Moral-Relativist or an Objective-Moral-Relativist. Since one cannot live as if that is true (per WJM), all players spontaneously combust in a puff of logic. Game Over.